tv [untitled] November 30, 2014 3:30am-4:01am PST
comes from. on the expenditure side, if you look at the year to date it actually is that we are under spending because we have a huge amount placed in projects for a variety of projects that has not been transferred already and if you take out that 30 million for the project funding we actually are spending more than they were last year and that is similar to what we have been doing in the other months and a lot of it has to do with the hiring of staff and we are about one million more than this time last year because of the staff hiring and we have also been doing a lot with our contracting, a lot with purchasing, and i mean the emergency supplies so we are getting our spending up and i would be happy to answer any questions if there are any, if not i can go on to just an update on the fee study. >> can we go a little deeper into why we are or our income is less, even though our projects are more? are we looking at smaller projects or do we need to go
and audit our evaluations. >> director of the department of building inspection and later on i will report, regarding the major project, and it is level off with remember last month it was increasing, and the is bigger project is pretty welcoming in a steady pace now. but the small project is coming back because to be modeling and to model and all of those, you know it will not generate that much revenue. actually, the fee study they want to put more on the project, but i intend to be you know, cut from the small project and to help the small home owner and all of those, and it will be detailed. >> and that is being included in the fee study. >> yeah. >> to look at the man power required, yeah. >> the person power, excuse me. >> yeah, we have a study on how
much we spend on the planning wheel and how much we spend on the, you know, the inspection. because also, the smaller the project and it will not bring in much revenue. >> right. >> i just want to make sure that we capture that in our fee study, because it looks like we are under water every month with the 7 percent. >> right, okay. >> and so i want to follow that up, to sort of follow up into what we discussed in the joint meeting and we will do our evaluation of permits and so, let's make sure that we have the permits. >> yeah, we have the quality control on the variation, and we have the minimum of 10
percent, to, you know, verify by the supervisor, you know, in the different division. >> okay. >> and i was just looking at page 2. and seeing that in our bread and butter areas, if you will, the zero to 500,000 range, we, and up to about 50,000, they seem to be holding study and they are doing very well up to 100,000 and they seem to be the bread and butter so if there is any evaluation around the change and they will be effecting the permits and costs. >> you will pick those up and those down and we will look at bringing up those that are not the bread and butter. >> yeah, so right now most of the concentrations have been on the larger projects.
and so, there are providing things that happen and it just depepeds and there is not, there is not a pattern, per se. and so for instance, in some evaluations we will be under covering, or we may be over recovering but the focus has been what the consultant and this is a good segway into the study on the larger projects because that is where a lot of the funding has come from in the past few years and we really do collect a lot of revenue from the larger projects and so that is what we are focusing on now, part of the reason why the consulting has not been back to the body yet, because dbi is an anominee from all jurisdictions and so his methodology from even having small to fall back on, looking at 100 million dollar projects and he is accustomed to doing that and we have to work with him as well as the controller's office as well as coming up with the standards of how we are going to measure
that and i don't have a date right now, and because at issue now, or it would be for those, and the department as well as the controller's office and we do have the questions about the methodology in general and, about the source, data and so, the controller's office analysts are actually combing through that and then they are going to go through that and then meet with both us and the supervisor to kind of go over those things and so that is what is really taking a long time. but, on the actual, of course, this is just only focusing on these permits, right? and when we talked about the evaluation we are talking about the building permits and the plan review, and electrical and this should not be a surprise to anyone, electrical and plumbing for the most part, we are under recovering as well as in housing inspection, too. >> and so, that, the primary wild card here is actually the permits that are based on valuation. and those permits that are based on valuation and because the consultant's model is based
on an hourly cost of recognizing the revenues in the same year and as you all know that for us a lot of our revenues and we collect a lot up front and it is supposed to last us over the life of the permit and that is why we are trying to reconcile those things. >> so a permit on a, so a permit on a million dollar 100 million dollar gets spent over how long of a period verses a 500 dollar or $1,000? >> so normally the it is that once you get over to like five million, i think the life of the permit would then go to two million, and when you go to 100 million dollar project we are going to two and a half and three and a half four years or so. >> four years. >> so it is just depends on all of these smaller permits when the permits come in, we earn the revenue during the same year, because the work is done within that same year. >> right, okay.
>> one other question. >> yes. >> as we are doing our study, are we anticipating a continual growth on the bottom two lines? the 500. >> the larger project? >> to 1 million? i see a growth, are we expecting and that is where the money. >> so actually we are not anticipating and part of the issue is that our valuation table is very, and it stopped at 1 million right? and so we, and a long time ago when we did this one million seems like a lot, and we know that one million is not a lot any more. even though you see 149 verses 85, in that one million, what is happening is that, i mentioned this before, last year, we had 6 projects i believe, over 100 million dollars. >> we are not seeing that this year. and so that is the difference and so even though you see and this is a little, it is not really accurate, yes, 1 million or more, it does look it and it is increased and if you go through the big money ones and 50 million and above, that is not increasing and so that is
part of the things that we are working with the consultant right now is that the table is based on a long time ago, when now, you know, a lot of things can be caused to be valued at one million dollars and that is something that they are looking at is looking at the table and if there needs to be more of a break out to capture some bigger projects. >> right. >> commissioner walker. >> just as a follow up, it is clear over the last few years the building has been phenomenally high after a pause in development and we are factoring that in because we are counting on the high categories to make-up for the fact that we are under charging for fees in some of these other departments, housing, etc.. smaller ones, which take up as much if not more time, so i just want to make sure that we capture that in our evaluation going forward. that we estimate for a normal
year, rather than, yes, i agree. >> good point and the department has been making that point throughout our negotiations with both of the..., well, us working with the consultant as well as the controller's office that this, yes, we are doing this study now, but, probably by the time that the fees go into effect, we may not be looking at the same type of economy and so we have to take that into consideration. and they recognize that. we also have to into consideration that there are some items that are not meant to be cost covering, right? and you know, we are taking into consideration that we want to encourage and we want to encourage home owner and for the people to get permit and there is a safety thing involved in here too and we don't want to price the permits out of people's reach that they will not want to come in and get the permits and so we are having the negotiationwise them too. >> right. i mean that is important because a lot of what we do is insensitivize through the reductions and we want to make sure that we cover it.
especially if we are not going to be counting on these, 100 million dollar projects to you know, help us a bit. but, that is my concern. >> is there anything else from the commissioners? >> thank you. >> thank you. >> item 4 b, update on proposed legislation? >> okay. >> good morning commissioners legislative and public affairs and i know that we are going to be addressing both the enhanced ventilation item in a few minutes, and possibly an item on the short term rental and so i will just mention the retrofit program, as president mccarthy alluded to, where we
are actually even in better compliance than, these numbers i was told before coming over this morning, where we are probably about 85 who are non-compliant out of the 6700 who were notified and so we are at the 99 percent compliance level on that first element. and as the director frequently reminds all of us, that is only the very first phase of having people submit the screening forms and they still need to get the permits, and we have actually issued about 75 permits and of course, do the work. and that is where we are achieving in the system. >> commissioner walker? >> i am just curious, percentage wise of those people responding how many actually need to work? we were anticipating that some of these might fall off if they have already had work done or if they indeed had sheer wall and the bottom floor, or do you have any ideas or is there any estimate yet? >> sorry, i don't have those numbers. >> okay. >> i don't think that we know that break down yet, but we can certainly look into that. >> that will be important
especially as we try to set the budgets for the next few years, because those are going to be the legal and illegal unit legization sxil be time consuming as well as the short term rental issue. so. >> yeah, this is 6 years program. >> i know. >> our budgets are two years and we need to think about that. >> i think that the good news is of course, that we are getting better compliance and that is very good. and i also want to mention the legislation that deals with the legalizing the illegal inlaw units. and because, we are just now, at about the 6 month point after the adoption of that legislation. which was about the middle of may. and we still only have the issued one permit, and on that. and even though we have had quite a few inquiry and range
about 130 and some of those are still in planning under review, and so that number i do expect will actually increase but it may take another couple of months to actually see that realized. >> actually, there are 6, and the dbi, and they are at right now, and i think that five of them can be approved soon except one of them because it is added, you know? and that will be in the coming of the expensive review, because, the number of story change and the seismic thing coming in. and there are totally, roughly, 50 of them submitted one on the issue. and but the rest of this is receive the planning right now. >> and will you remind me of what we are estimating is the number city wide where of these units. i think that we have, estimated something, correct? >> like... >> yeah. >> i think 30,000.
>> 30,000? >> i think that was supervisor chiu's estimate. and i don't know if that was based on actually. >> the problem is lots of home owners are arguing that they on and we try to encourage them is issue is the rent control and another one is the tax increase, and it is the same thing as number one i try. >> yeah. >> and at which, you know, >> this is a really challenging issue. and not, unsimilar to the short term rental issue. and we are going to have the same kind of challenges as a department. >> yeah. >> and, i think that we will all agree as commissioners that it kind of talks to these legislations when we just implement them. >> yeah. >> without thinking them through and that is one thing that the commission is going to be, and we are going to be before it, and before we even gets voted on and agreed on, we are going to say, how do we implement these things? >> we are trying to be more proactive about that and the
legislative review committee that the director has set up, has taken a look and we have identified four or five pieces of legislation right now, that we are watching and discussing with supervisors to make sure that we are part of that conversation. and that includes supervisor weiner's proposal to add an inlaw, and if it can be done in the existing building envelope, when you are doing a seismic retrofit. and that legislation has not yet been heard in planning. and but we expect that to happen, maybe by the end of this year, or earlier in the new year. and dbi has agreed, in meeting with the supervisor to do a public notification where we will make people aware that this legislation is about to be introduced. if they are considering doing a retrofit. just so that they are aware of this. so we will do a mailing about
it to our data base from the soft story group where, of course, we know many people are looking into retrofits and then we will have the same notification at the public counters so the people again can be at least aware that this opportunity may be coming once the legislation gets through. >> i just mentioned two others that we are paying close attention to and that is the mayor's office of earthquake safety, and as you know, it has been promoting a facade inspection phase, for a building and that could be a very large universe of building and we are trying to find out how many buildings are five or more stories that may be included in this facade inspection. and the other engineers tell us that that could be a rather complicated type of program.
so, it may require additional staffing as that moves forward and right now we don't have a plan for where that is going forward any way. >> commissioner walker? >> so that is a facade to make sure that it is secure and isn't going to... >> fall over. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> and there was a redevelopment agency. they used to do it down in the redevelopment agency was, i know, in their district. they used to do those types of programs. >> yeah, they did that and yeah, a lot of it was just how it looks, and kind of spifing up. >> it is a real problem. >> yeah, we did a similar program to the parapits originally the things on top that enclosed roof tops are often times not attached and will fall. >> commissioner walker, we have a way before we start the program. and then this is at a park on
the umb building. but this front story, but i don't have the order or the definition yet is still not going through the az is included or the cost panel is included? and there are a lot of building and i estimate about 10,000. >> yeah. >> maybe the building. >> wow. >> and the dbi staff and how many companies out there can do that kind of a job? >> yeah. >> that is my concern. >> yeah. >> somebody suggested maybe a big type of a machine could be scanning, but i don't know how we work. that is why i have a lot of questions on that ordinance. i am worried about it but how to handle it. >> i understand. >> and i wanted to mention that supervisor tang has been meeting with a working group that dbi has been part of and that is looking at mandatory disability access improvements.
and we are continuing to work closely with her to just make sure that whatever legislation that does come out of that, is enforcable and manageable and does not, end up putting especially small businesses at some risk given what might be required in a way of investments. >> is that for commercial? or residential? >> it is city wide. both. >> everything? >> all commercial, (inaudible) only. >> okay, got it. >> and the final one, the department of the environment and the mayor's office is looking at requiring on all new construction, installation of solar panels and we have a couple of our staff participate ng that working group and there is a meeting and a second one schedule in that month. >> thank you. >> thank you for that update. >> item 4 c, update on major
projects. >> tom, director of the department of building inspection, as you can see from compared to last month, the major project is just about level off and only 0.3 percent in increase and but i expect some of the project we will come up like the basketball arena, and actually they want the construction next year. but about candle stick park also but those are not in there yet but the ventilation of the park and they are want to start issuing. and i expect the treasure island will be coming up soon. and they are going the groundwork on that part also. and we project that it will be some what with the project coming in, but not as substantial as the 200 million or those projects that we are watching for it, yeah. >> any questions?
>> and does the warrior... (inaudible) or does it (inaudible). >> it is the whole thing is dbi, because they are not in the port. >> they are not in the port? >> no. >> okay. >> the parking lot part. >> i got you. >> that is the two office tower also on top tf with the underground parking. >> i got it. >> all right. >> 4 d update on cold enforcement. good morning commissioners this is a code enforcement and the update pretty much to october. and for the building inspection that were performed and i approximate 417 and we note that it is the highest month that we had for the year. and back in january, there is maybe 1000 less inspections and
so the inspection has been very busy, building up the districts and redesignate the inspectors to assist other inspectors in the busy districts and we also have two new building inspectors performing inspections. complaints received, 344. complaints response within 24 to 72 hours is 277. complaints but first notice of violations were 54. complaints received and abaited without notice of violation, 174, abaited complaints for notice of violation were 49. second notice of violations refer to code enforcement 21. for the housing inspection division housing inspection performed were 897, complaints received were 347, complaints responsed within 24 to 72 hours, 339. complaints of notice of
violations issued 123. abaited complaints are 289. the number of cases sense the director's hearing, 4. >> routine inspections 237. for code enforcement division, the number of hearings were 101, number of order of abasement issued were 20. >> the number of cases under advisement is 25. the number of cases abaited, 108. and today enforcement, and with the 23 and that is for the month of october and we will have it provided there to give you the break down on that, thank you. >> thank you, deputy director. >> is there any public comment on the director's report, items 4 a through d? >> seeing none, >> so madam secretary if we could go to item 7 if it is okay with my fellow commissioners. >> okay. >> discuss and possible action on the ordinance and amending
the health code, article 38, to require an enhanced ventilation system for sensitive use projects within the air pollutant exposure zone, and establishing document review fees; amending the building code to correspond to the health code changes; and making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1. (continued from 10/15/14 meeting) and thank you for coming i know that you are well tired of us here now at this stage, but now we have the people here today and i think that we will have a good conversation and the whole gist of it is kind of an update on the implementation and i want to acknowledge paul niel here who was implement to put together the report and he has also brought back jeffrey maddox who is a fire consultant who maybe have some input as well and i know that we have the speakers here and i appreciate you coming and you and the staff and the planning
coming today, each though at this stage we are just trying to figure out, it is kind of past where you guys are at now. if you have any comments. >> thank you very much. i am from san francisco, department of public health and environmental health, representing the air quality program and my colleagues are here from the planning department. and it is true that the effective date has been established as december 7th, for the amendments to article 38, and the mayor's signature was on november 7th. we then have a 90 day mandate to from the effective date to conduct with our effective city departments. including dbi planning and fire. and effective members of the development community, and this week and also, began a discussion with the affordable housing, and the people in the mayor's office of housing and the community development because they will be assisting those developers. so, similar to what we have
been doing with your community of the builder's association and mr. oneal presenting a proposal which we will call the corridor air proposal. so we will have a term about that, and that is a way to see if it is acceptable in fire safety terms to use the filtered corridor air as the fresh air supply for the residential units so we are definitely trying to give a fair hearing to that idea and seeing whether or not it is going to be acceptable to our fire marshal. so then our job in the health department is to lead the charge for the 120-day mandate as well. which is to have a report, of technologies, that help people comply with this law. and so, the corridor air proposal will be one of those if we can determine whether it is going to be accepted across the board, accepted on a case by case basis or not accepted
at all. we will include that in the report, and we are looking at the technologis that they have use and what the history has been with compliance and so we can use their experience and we are considering whether or not to let out a small contract and so we can have the review from the mechanical engineering firm on the available technologies to use. >> okay. >> and those are all different approachs that we are thinking about right now, and the report says that there could be regarding policies. that help the people comply. and so, that is something that i probably need to go back to the planning department and consider. but, some of the high-rise developers said that they would lose the space when they put in ducting. the question is can be there a different height allowance to the proportion for the space that they lost for ducting, for example. >> and so at the end of the 120 days. >> yes, so that will be the april.
>> does that go back to the board of supervisors? or where does that go? >> let me see here, shall report to the board of of supervisors within 120 days. after the effective date, even though it is a one time report, it is something that we will need to keep doing to make it available through the website. >> but the end of the game of the 120 report will be implementation and among all of the other issues that you talked about. >> implementation is ongoing from the effective date, which is december 7th. so the report is to inform implementation but it does not stop it or halt it or pause in. >> okay. all right. >> okay. >> thank you. >> and so, once again, thanks very much for coming again here today. >> thank you. >> so i will and if it is okay, not to kind of be, direct on this, we could go straight to mr. davis's who is here, dr. davis who has been...
>> okay. >> good morning, i am david rich and i am with the engineering firm over in the east bay in burkely and we regularly do the work like the work that we have done on this project, reting to the performance based assessments of systems designed to maintain some level of fire life safety for occupants in buildings where there might be a fire. it is not comprehensive but i will give you the summary now. in a design of a system like this, it is common to look at the code requirements, what the
building system looks like and then develop some sort of a faulty, and to understand what the risks are and what the potential threats are to the system and so we did that and we understood that we were dealing with one particular approach to maintaining the occupant with a fire inside of a dwelling unit and that is typically visibility and the ability to see and to get out of the building and that would be impaired by smoke. you are looking at a corridor that is damper that will be activated by a fire by a smoke detector probably to keep the smoke that is in the unit from traveling into the corridor. and these kinds of smoke or fire smoke dampers are commonly employed in the building components